Or are you going to tell me it's "cheating" when people read MS document revision histories, or the "redacted" parts of PDFs?
No. I'm not going to tell you anything. Honestly I couldn't really care less what McCain does or whether you look at changes in documents.
I was just responding to what the parent comment asked--the parent was trying to understand this statement from the post:
Assuming the spider adheres to robots.txt, this is clever and well done.
I offered my guess as to why the editor added that caveat. You are free to write to Mr. Taco and argue him on that point. I, personally, am not the one to argue on it because I really don't care.
The point is moot, though, as the other commenter pointed out--McCain's team almost certainly was just using versionista.com, which tracks changes in web pages. There's no question of ethical delimma here, because the tracked pages are publicly viewable.
I wanted to see what their system is like, so I went to their home page--I liked the examples of pages they were monitoring in the screenshots. Very enjoyable.
Robots.txt only exists if you want to direct the search engine spider/robot in some regard. If you just want the search engine spider/robot to do what it does naturally (crawl and file information away), then you don't need to have a robots.txt at all. I think the editor was concerned that it would be unethical for the McCain campaign to create a crawler that ignores robots.txt. So McCain's campaign's savvy was only "clever" if it wasn't cheating (by ignoring robots.txt). In this case, as you mention, there was no robots.txt, which means McCain had no need to cheat. And of course that is the case--certainly Obama wants his campaign website to be searchable by Google.
Unless it is in a binding contract, with severe penalties, you should never expect a company to "keep its word." This is especially true when keeping said word affects the almighty Bottom Line.
But there are no listing fees. As you note, "Cash is king"--so how is Ebay making money off this deal? I don't know the aswer to that question. But even though there aren't listing fees, Ebay is certainly charging buy.com money. It might be, for example, a monthly sum--this would be the equivalent to purchasing listing fees in bulk. Divide whatever Ebay does charge buy.com and divide that by the number of listings it posts, and that is it's listing fee--it isn't really $0.00. So the playing field isn't quite as skewed as it initially appears (though it's still probably skewed, unless Ebay really screwed buy.com on whatever it does charge, or if buy.com really screwed ebay and gave them little or nothing).
It works fine for me in Opera 9.51--I have it set to mask as Firefox. Also, it doesn't run slow for me--it seems to just work fine. Also--finally Yahoo mail works for me now! (albeit slow on that one)
(which also works fine in Opera) Well, unless you want to use the chat feature built in to the Gmail interface. That's still pretty sketchy in Opera with the new Gmail interface.
Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox. Please stop repeating this to justify what Microsoft has done. I wasn't justifying anything--even if Jobs "stole" the idea for a GUI from XEROX, how would that justify Microsoft stealing it from Apple? Stealing's wrong whether or not someone else did it first (additionally, Apple's GUI developed off XEROX's was developed significantly beyond XEROX's, whereas Microsoft seemed to just do it's best to just plain copy Apple). I was just noting that a lot of people thing Apple "invented" the GUI, when in reality, it seems that Xerox was the first to develop a GUI.
All Bill Gates did was [steal the idea for] a GUI [from Apple, who stole it from Xerox] when every other operating system was still command line based.
I don't think much of this matters anyway--you aren't supposed to cite to Britannica either in research (or any other encyclopedia). That's one reason I like Wikipedia so much--just like Britannica, they just give the facts to send you in the right direction, but for free and on many more topics. Encyclopedias just help us to know what we should be looking up. This is why Wikipedia is much, much more valuable when people cite their sources.
In addition to what everyone else has said, most people don't quite understand how much energy nuclei pack. Look at the rovers on the moon, for example. They just have a small quantity of radioactive material, and they just keep going. Even better--nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers go 25 years without even being refueled. This stuff is seriously potent. There's enough out there to last for a while. There might be better long term options, but nuclear is better in the meantime than oil and cleaner than coal. It's at the very least an incrimental step in the right direction.
I don't think I'd quite call it "self-destructing." Money is still green at Microsoft when it comes from selling XP. Microsoft doesn't go down until people turn to Unix based/like operating systems.
Of course he was posting to MLS. All realtors do that. He was sending the emails in order to distinguish his listings from the million others in Vegas.
As for the opt-out--I don't think the people that opted out complained about not receiving the emails. I think that one of the realtors who received the emails and saw that the opt-out was possible decided that allowing the opt-out was unethical for some absurd reason. You have to understand--these are realtors, not humans.
Yes, I did quit, though--it was just a job to fill the time between undergrad and grad school.
The association, including the leadership, consists of realtors. Apparently one or more realtors involved in that leadership did not like that there was an "opt out" link at the bottom of the email.
It's really odd if you ask me.
The whole thing really annoyed my boss. He was in it for the money of course, and he figured he could make more money sending these out, but he felt also that the "haters" kind of put a damper on that because they can effect his reputation--he still thought it amounted to a net positive, so he continued to send the emails after he was told he couldn't exclude the "haters."
I worked for a realtor/real estate broker who would send emails to everyone listed in the Las Vegas Association of Realtors whenever he listed a home (this was back during the housing boom). Except he had me send the emails. When he first began sending the emails--before I worked there--he received hate messages and hate phone calls, so he removed those people from the list and added an opt-out link at the bottom of the email. Within a week or two the leadership of the Las Vegas Association of Realtors cited him for not allowing all area real estate agents to view the advertisements. They did not care that the people not receiving the ads were people who complained about the ads and/or opted out from receiving them. He had two options: (1) stop sending the emails which a portion of the recipient realtors considered spam and a portion considered useful leads; or (2) send them to all local realtors whether they want them or not. The Association threatened to revoke his license for an ethical violation (giving preference to realtors who did not opt out of his emails) if he didn't comply.
So, every week I sent his emails, and every week we got hate mail from angry realtors.
From TFA:
"With the advent of much more precise instruments such as the HARPS spectrograph on ESO's 3.6-m telescope at La Silla, we can now discover smaller planets, with masses between 2 and 10 times the Earth's mass," says Stéphane Udry, one of Mayor's colleagues. Such planets are called super-Earths, as they are more massive than the Earth but less massive than Uranus and Neptune (about 15 Earth masses).
The skin thing is easy enough (just install Emil and that's solved), but I don't see what's different about the "sidebar" that you're talking about. I assume you're talking about the panel, but the only thing I see different at all is that there seems to be a bug with regard to button sizes. Is there something else you're talking about?
SO the AC and yourself, Willy, don't trust infomercials, unless you like the product, in which case, you then reverse your position on infomercials conditionally. No--I just unconditionally don't like infomercials. I never said anything about trusting or liking them or products who use them. Also, to stick up for AC, he also didn't say he likes the infomercials for the ladders, just that he likes the ladder even though it happens to have an infomercial (which he usually automatically equates with a low quality product).
**Except for (maybe) the Little Giant Ladder. I've had hands-on and they are actually pretty well built. I will actually be in the market for a ladder very soon, so I'm glad you mentioned this, because I too generally don't trust infomercials.
Slashdot Mirror
Or are you going to tell me it's "cheating" when people read MS document revision histories, or the "redacted" parts of PDFs?
No. I'm not going to tell you anything. Honestly I couldn't really care less what McCain does or whether you look at changes in documents.
I was just responding to what the parent comment asked--the parent was trying to understand this statement from the post:
Assuming the spider adheres to robots.txt, this is clever and well done.
I offered my guess as to why the editor added that caveat. You are free to write to Mr. Taco and argue him on that point. I, personally, am not the one to argue on it because I really don't care.
The point is moot, though, as the other commenter pointed out--McCain's team almost certainly was just using versionista.com, which tracks changes in web pages. There's no question of ethical delimma here, because the tracked pages are publicly viewable.
his campaign was just using versionista.com
I wanted to see what their system is like, so I went to their home page--I liked the examples of pages they were monitoring in the screenshots. Very enjoyable.
Robots.txt only exists if you want to direct the search engine spider/robot in some regard. If you just want the search engine spider/robot to do what it does naturally (crawl and file information away), then you don't need to have a robots.txt at all. I think the editor was concerned that it would be unethical for the McCain campaign to create a crawler that ignores robots.txt. So McCain's campaign's savvy was only "clever" if it wasn't cheating (by ignoring robots.txt). In this case, as you mention, there was no robots.txt, which means McCain had no need to cheat. And of course that is the case--certainly Obama wants his campaign website to be searchable by Google.
Unless it is in a binding contract, with severe penalties, you should never expect a company to "keep its word." This is especially true when keeping said word affects the almighty Bottom Line.
But there are no listing fees. As you note, "Cash is king"--so how is Ebay making money off this deal? I don't know the aswer to that question. But even though there aren't listing fees, Ebay is certainly charging buy.com money. It might be, for example, a monthly sum--this would be the equivalent to purchasing listing fees in bulk. Divide whatever Ebay does charge buy.com and divide that by the number of listings it posts, and that is it's listing fee--it isn't really $0.00. So the playing field isn't quite as skewed as it initially appears (though it's still probably skewed, unless Ebay really screwed buy.com on whatever it does charge, or if buy.com really screwed ebay and gave them little or nothing).
And his guide to the bible.
It works fine for me in Opera 9.51--I have it set to mask as Firefox. Also, it doesn't run slow for me--it seems to just work fine. Also--finally Yahoo mail works for me now! (albeit slow on that one)
New tab button? What useless clutter! I right click and drag my mouse down, or use ctrl + t.
Correction:
All Bill Gates did was [steal the idea for] a GUI [from Apple, who stole it from Xerox] when every other operating system was still command line based.
I don't think much of this matters anyway--you aren't supposed to cite to Britannica either in research (or any other encyclopedia). That's one reason I like Wikipedia so much--just like Britannica, they just give the facts to send you in the right direction, but for free and on many more topics. Encyclopedias just help us to know what we should be looking up. This is why Wikipedia is much, much more valuable when people cite their sources.
Yes, I feel sheepish--I did mean to say "mars" rather than "moon" rovers. And I thought for sure that I'd read that the rovers were nuclear powered. Perhaps I was thinking of this future rover: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mars_science_lab_050105.html
Also, I thought I'd note--the Viking 2 mars lander was nuclear powered, though it also apparently had batteries, which failed and ended the mission.
In addition to what everyone else has said, most people don't quite understand how much energy nuclei pack. Look at the rovers on the moon, for example. They just have a small quantity of radioactive material, and they just keep going. Even better--nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers go 25 years without even being refueled. This stuff is seriously potent. There's enough out there to last for a while. There might be better long term options, but nuclear is better in the meantime than oil and cleaner than coal. It's at the very least an incrimental step in the right direction.
I don't think I'd quite call it "self-destructing." Money is still green at Microsoft when it comes from selling XP. Microsoft doesn't go down until people turn to Unix based/like operating systems.
I asked my Firefox to check for updates and it tells me there are no updates. But I last installed the release candidate.
Of course he was posting to MLS. All realtors do that. He was sending the emails in order to distinguish his listings from the million others in Vegas.
As for the opt-out--I don't think the people that opted out complained about not receiving the emails. I think that one of the realtors who received the emails and saw that the opt-out was possible decided that allowing the opt-out was unethical for some absurd reason. You have to understand--these are realtors, not humans.
Yes, I did quit, though--it was just a job to fill the time between undergrad and grad school.
The association, including the leadership, consists of realtors. Apparently one or more realtors involved in that leadership did not like that there was an "opt out" link at the bottom of the email.
It's really odd if you ask me.
The whole thing really annoyed my boss. He was in it for the money of course, and he figured he could make more money sending these out, but he felt also that the "haters" kind of put a damper on that because they can effect his reputation--he still thought it amounted to a net positive, so he continued to send the emails after he was told he couldn't exclude the "haters."
I was in an interesting quandry once myself.
I worked for a realtor/real estate broker who would send emails to everyone listed in the Las Vegas Association of Realtors whenever he listed a home (this was back during the housing boom). Except he had me send the emails. When he first began sending the emails--before I worked there--he received hate messages and hate phone calls, so he removed those people from the list and added an opt-out link at the bottom of the email. Within a week or two the leadership of the Las Vegas Association of Realtors cited him for not allowing all area real estate agents to view the advertisements. They did not care that the people not receiving the ads were people who complained about the ads and/or opted out from receiving them. He had two options: (1) stop sending the emails which a portion of the recipient realtors considered spam and a portion considered useful leads; or (2) send them to all local realtors whether they want them or not. The Association threatened to revoke his license for an ethical violation (giving preference to realtors who did not opt out of his emails) if he didn't comply.
So, every week I sent his emails, and every week we got hate mail from angry realtors.
Ummm...that's different. That's a phone thing. I actually use this phone thing, but it has nothing to do with any number of cores in a CPU.
The skin thing is easy enough (just install Emil and that's solved), but I don't see what's different about the "sidebar" that you're talking about. I assume you're talking about the panel, but the only thing I see different at all is that there seems to be a bug with regard to button sizes. Is there something else you're talking about?
In other news, Opera 9.5, the other best browser, released today.
Dad,
Your son at college asking for money is not a "spam bot."
-Jim